RayNAustin wrote:I'd give the lion's share of the credit to "Bob" and the rest to Alfred .... Kyle would be 0-6 right now, without Bob & Alfred

It's a SYSTEM dawg........ everyone: do your job

Its takes both. The right players to execute said system. When McNabb then Grossman/Beck was running the O I thought Kyle was a bad OC. Then I remembered his O was number one in several categories while he was in Hou. He has a good qb and rb to work with.

I don't have to sell my soul,
He's already in me,
I don't need to sell my soul,
He's already in me.
I wanna be adored
I wanna be adored.

Aside from the fact that after Elway retired, the following year, Shanahan's Broncos went 6-10 ... and aside from the fact that it would take 7 years before he won another division title or a playoff game .... none of which I find overly remarkable, the NFL is a "what have you done for me lately" kinda place ... and lately ... as in the last 5 seasons .... 3 with Denver and the past 2 with Washington .... Shanny is 10 games below 500, which unfortunately all occurred here (he was 500 during his final 3 seasons in Denver). So he's been riding a reputation that is very old now.

That's not great ... it's not good ... and it isn't even mediocre ... it's actually horrible.

Having looked at it more closely I see the relation between the "Aside from the fact" and your final judgment.

Irn-Bru wrote:I would not say Shanahan's Skins tenure has been "horrible" or that he has "sucked," no.

So you don't think 14-25 sucks?

No, not necessarily, for a buildling team.

Most people define the Jim Zorn era as horrible. His percentage was 37.5%, while Shanahan is 35.8% currently, which is apparently worse numbers wise, but better because Shanahan's name is Shanahan and not Zorn.

Spurrier had an even better winning percentage, but after he was gone Jon Jansen (I believe it was) said that it had gotten so bad the team would take the field and he was totally unsure whether they had a chance to win on a given day. Do you think that's true of Shanahan's current squad?

My point is only that there are more ways of measuring the state of a team and its progress than a raw w/l percentage. One can analyze Jim Zorn's last year in Washington on many levels to find the instability that was rampant in our organization. That's not a simple matter of having the "right" name on the head coach's parking spot.

"I’m never under the assumption that you draft for need. You draft the best available football player on the board. ... Because, in the long run, they are the ones who will help you win the most games." - Scot McCloughan

RayNAustin wrote:I'd give the lion's share of the credit to "Bob" and the rest to Alfred .... Kyle would be 0-6 right now, without Bob & Alfred

It's a SYSTEM dawg........ everyone: do your job

Yea, well where did that system get us last season with the other rgiii? We are now arguing which comes first, the smart coach or the gifted qb......same questions as asked about walsh and montana, belichik and brady, shanny and elway....on and on. Think the correct answer is u need both smart coaches, and talented/motivated players, to consistently win in the nfl.

Please, the system won super bowls with the broncos, the system now has the Texans sitting atop the NFL. The system was run here with an immobile turnover machine last year. Now the East Coast Offense has evolved from this. The Shannahan created a whole new offense based on this kids skills. As I've said in the past...you need a top level QB and a top level coach to win in this league. Now we have both

Mike Shanahan's last Super Bowl was in 1998 ... that's a long time ago. And since then, his record is 105 and 98, just 7 games above 500 over 14 years. That is not "greatness" ... that is post Elway perpetual mediocrity, which includes a couple of pretty decent QBs in Jake the Snake and Cutler.

What's even more disturbing is Shanahan has had 1 winning season in the last 6 years since 2005, and is 14-24 to date with the Skins. That is dismally horrific.

If one should be totally honest in the assessment of the last 6 games, and the sensational production that RG3 has contributed from his own skill and play making ability, which includes monster runs, red zone proficiency, throwing accuracy and a remarkable level of football intelligence, plus leadership skills that no one could actually expect from a rookie QB, that is by any reasonable calculation the ONLY reason we're sitting at 3-3 right now .... instead of 1-5 or 0-6 had Sexy Rexy been handling the rock.

Honestly, I can find not a trace of greatness from these results we've seen from this coaching staff in it's third season. Our defense is worse than it's been for several years ... and until this sensational kid arrived, Kyle's offense needed a seeing eye dog to find the endzone, using three different QBs in the span of 2 seasons.

Hey, it's all good to be a homer .. and optimism is a good thing when you have solid reasons for it ... but think about it ... without RG3, this team would likely be 0-6 right now, and people would be debating which tree at Redskin Park should be used to hang Kyle, Mike and Has., and wondering, as we enter the tough stretch of the schedule, where we're going to find 2 or 3 wins and escape being the 0-16 detroit lions.

Look, it doesn't require genius to teach a kid how to swim when he comes in almost walking on water, but it does require an extreme level of delusion to attribute greatness to a guy who calls a pitchout on a critical third and 1 with the game in the balance ... particularly given the well demonstrated ability of the RB to grind out hard yards inside.

Of course that's just one example, but the point I'm making here, or at least it is my contention that RG3 would make any offense function, because some of his best production has come when his helmet speaker has gone on the blink, or he's manufacturing TD's with his legs.

Personally, I don't think the offense is actually utilizing the proper balance RG3's skills brings to the table ... with just 5 TD passes over 6 games from a kid with a great arm and accuracy, tells me that the offense is relying far too much on his legs, and too little on his arm.

This right here Ray. This is the conversation that started this bro, and now it's been turned into how many wins and loses Shannahan has had to determine how "horrific" he is as a coach. I hesitate to reply to this argument in fear of getting one of your 1000 word essay answers but I can't let you continue your rant about this coach without admitting his system is a proven success...with the Broncos with Elway and the Broncos without Elway. It is a success in Houston right now, and after built, it will be a success here.

Listen, his record here has been awful, no one can deny that. It's pretty obvious, but he took over mush. You have to at least admit that, and I think you do. In addition, you have to admit the years after Elway in Denver were pretty damn good as well. And that was with no legitimate franchise QB. Maybe you want to call Cutler a franchise QB, but having lived with Bears fans here in Chicago, I can tell you he's not. He will not win the big one. Griese and Plummer played well because he put them in those positions to take advantage of their talents. Remember Griese was a 4 rounder (I believe) and Plummer was almost declared a bust with the Cardinals. I am not going to debate the talent levels of his QB's Ray, so don't change the subject on me and take this in another direction, suffice it to say, he was not playing with a franchise QB, which is your claim...what has he done outside of Elway.

If you really want to use records to prove it though, his record was precisely 56.875% going 91-69 over that 10 year period. If that was his career, his percentage would be right there with Marv Levy, Mike Ditka, Tom Coughlin, Bill Cower, Chuck Noll and well above Chucky. So don't come in here telling me that he hasn't done anything since Elway. It was VERY successful in Denver with and without Elway. It is VERY successful in Houston (after it took years to build, but the owner was patient). He's only had two and almost 1/2 years to rebuild this franchise from scratch. Ray this team had crap players, a crap attitude, and a fan base that had almost given up. He is fighting an uphill battle to remake it and in my opinion, I can see the positives, even if you can't. I think you need another offseason to put a bow on it and see what it looks like. This is not even close to a finished product and certainly too early to make a judgement, and if by the end of next year, we are not back in major contention, I will be behind you 100%. Until that time, you are flat wrong.

Last edited by chiefhog44 on Tue Oct 23, 2012 8:43 am, edited 2 times in total.

Miss you 21

12/17/09 - Ding Dong the Witch is Dead...Which Old Witch? The Wicked Witch.

How many coaches with HOF QB's don't have more then 2 NFL titles? I mean two? What the heck is that? Two?

And if you throw out his best years, the rest of his career wasn't as good. I think that's a record for a coach, and not the kind of record they want...

And finally, we are running around thinking the team was better then it was under Zorn, I mean dude, take off the Rose colored glasses. They are Redskin_Fanatic bad, Ray is right. Shannahan couldn't coach high school football.

The one thing Ray said I wondered about was that 1998 was a long time ago. It was? Thanks for telling me I'm old, Ray. What are you, 12?

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

How many coaches with HOF QB's don't have more then 2 NFL titles? I mean two? What the heck is that? Two?

And if you throw out his best years, the rest of his career wasn't as good. I think that's a record for a coach, and not the kind of record they want...

And finally, we are running around thinking the team was better then it was under Zorn, I mean dude, take off the Rose colored glasses. They are Redskin_Fanatic bad, Ray is right. Shannahan couldn't coach high school football.

The one thing Ray said I wondered about was that 1998 was a long time ago. It was? Thanks for telling me I'm old, Ray. What are you, 12?

"I’m never under the assumption that you draft for need. You draft the best available football player on the board. ... Because, in the long run, they are the ones who will help you win the most games." - Scot McCloughan

chiefhog44 wrote:This right here Ray. This is the conversation that started this bro, and now it's been turned into how many wins and loses Shannahan has had to determine how "horrific" he is as a coach. I hesitate to reply to this argument in fear of getting one of your 1000 word essay answers but I can't let you continue your rant about this coach without admitting his system is a proven success...with the Broncos with Elway and the Broncos without Elway. It is a success in Houston right now, and after built, it will be a success here.

I'll try not to over tax your attention span, but with all of the distortions, it's not easy to keep the response short of a Novella ...

This offense bears no resemblance to the Broncos offense or the Houston offense ... nor even the Redskin offense of the past two years. This might better be labeled as the Baylor RG3 Wildcat West Coast and without RG3, it wouldn't exist., and Kyle would be relegated to the 2010/2011 Kyle Shanahan offense that couldn't find the end zone with Google Earth GPS assistance. So attempting to draw a meaningful comparison between this and Gary Kubiac's offense which HE took to Houston from Denver, and taught to Mike's son Kyle in Houston, is an irrelevant and meaningless exercise.

chiefhog44 wrote:Listen, his record here has been awful, no one can deny that. It's pretty obvious ....

Listen ... THAT WAS MY MAIN POINT that was indeed being argued. JESUS. Unless of course you believe there is a substantial difference between your word "awful" and my word "horrible" ?

chiefhog44 wrote: but he took over mush. You have to at least admit that, and I think you do. In addition, you have to admit the years after Elway in Denver were pretty damn good as well. And that was with no legitimate franchise QB. Maybe you want to call Cutler a franchise QB, but having lived with Bears fans here in Chicago, I can tell you he's not. He will not win the big one. Griese and Plummer played well because he put them in those positions to take advantage of their talents. Remember Griese was a 4 rounder (I believe) and Plummer was almost declared a bust with the Cardinals. I am not going to debate the talent levels of his QB's Ray, so don't change the subject on me and take this in another direction, suffice it to say, he was not playing with a franchise QB, which is your claim...what has he done outside of Elway.

Very convenient Chief ... acknowledge I'm "right" on the primary point (the results being Awful ) and then prove how "wrong" I am by providing a shopping cart full of excuses for why it was destined to be Awful, to include YOUR SPECULATIONS that you "don't want to debate"? Kind of a lopsided and rather self serving set of debating rules you got there, Chief.

In any case, Plummer was substantially the same QB in Denver that he was in Arizona ... the big difference was that the Cardinals storied history was that of a DOORMAT ... while Denver was a perennial contender that Shanahan inherited. Dan Reeves, who's coaching record was better than Mike's overall in Denver, (Reeves 110-73-1 ... .601) That Reeves lost his THREE Super Bowls while Mike won his TWO, was slightly due to Reeve's Broncos having lost to the Giants, Redskins and Joe Montana's 49er's ... each of those teams in those respective years were THE POWERHOUSE favorites going in, and blew them out in each of those games. They never had a chance ... or, more appropriately, Elway failed to be GOD, and win those games single handedly.

But it's more than a convenient coincidence that Elway had already taken the Broncos to THREE Super Bowls before Shanahan arrived, and no coincidence that this two time Super Bowl winning coach never got near the Super Bowl again, after Elway retired.

chiefhog44 wrote:If you really want to use records to prove it though, his record was precisely 56.875% going 91-69 over that 10 year period. If that was his career, his percentage would be right there with Marv Levy, Mike Ditka, Tom Coughlin, Bill Cower, Chuck Noll and well above Chucky.

That's not a strong tactic ... two can play this game ... I can list such ICONS of the NFL as:

Gary Moeller - .571

Brick Muller - .667

Greasy Neal - .594

Buddy Parker - .581

John Rauch - .588

Who are these household names? Who the (blank) knows .. but apparently they must be better NFL Head Coaches than Shanahan, according to your criteria.

chiefhog44 wrote: So don't come in here telling me that he hasn't done anything since Elway.

I didn't .. that is another item on the building list of deliberate distortions being engaged here. And I thought I already corrected that point with Irn-Bru, so try to keep up!! I said he was "mediocre" after Elway ... not "he did nothing". So don't come in here creating straw man arguments that are totally untrue, and think that's gonna win you a point.

chiefhog44 wrote: It was VERY successful in Denver with and without Elway. It is VERY successful in Houston (after it took years to build, but the owner was patient). He's only had two and almost 1/2 years to rebuild this franchise from scratch.

Mike Shanahan has nothing to do with Houston. Kyle does. And in the 2 years Kyle was the OC (calling plays in Kubiac's offense) the Texans were .531 .... after Kyle left, and to date they have a .619 winning percentage. Offensively, they improved AFTER KYLE LEFT ... both in balance between run and pass, and winning football games. Kyle's "success" in Houston can be attributed to Kubiac's offense that Kyle learned while there, as well as one of the better QB-Receiver tandems in the NFL that he heavily relied on to manufacture plays. Consequently, due to the improvement in results after Kyle departed, that evidence suggests that Kyle was not able to take full advantage of what he had in Houston ..... either.

What is actually happening here is that Mike Shanahan has hitched his struggling Son's wagon to a sensational thoroughbred horse named Robert Griffin III, and now everyone wants to praise Kyle's brilliance in "developing" RG3 so quickly. It's brain dead nonsense. RG3 is single handedly pulling Mike and Kyle's arses out of that bottomless pit they have dug themselves in these past two years ... and he's running for TDs and he's making miraculous plays .. scrambling all over the field, making 4th and 10 first downs ... drawing penalties and basically blowing everyone's minds with his exceptional ability.

The real question is ... just how heavy is this wagon, and can this horse continue to pull it without coming up lame under the strain.

chiefhog44 wrote:Ray this team had crap players, a crap attitude, and a fan base that had almost given up. He is fighting an uphill battle to remake it and in my opinion, I can see the positives, even if you can't. I think you need another offseason to put a bow on it and see what it looks like. This is not even close to a finished product and certainly too early to make a judgement, and if by the end of next year, we are not back in major contention, I will be behind you 100%. Until that time, you are flat wrong.

Chief .... the same could be said when Gibbs came back in 2004. And we made the playoffs in 2005 & 2007 with Mark Brunell, Jason Campbell, and Todd Collins.

Jim Zorn came in in 2008 with a huge question mark on personnel and tasked with winning with the inconsistent Jason Campbell as the QB. The Redskins started out 6-2 that year, until the offensive line disintegrated, and they couldn't score more than an average of 13 points per game the remainder of the year. finishing 8-8

In 2009, we faced the same problems at QB and our inability to put points on the board as exemplified by:

These past two seasons under Shanahan pretty much mirrored the previous two years under Zorn ... good defense and poor offense leading to a lot of close losses .... except Shanahan's record is slightly worse than Zorn's, with better talent that Shanahan selected.

And need I remind you that Zorn needed body guards to protect him not just from the Fans, but from Bingo parlors and the Owner and GM, who publicly castrated him half way through just his second season?

Give Zorn RG3 instead of Jason Campbell, and the Redskins would almost certainly have won 10 or more games in BOTH OF HIS YEARS here. But with the team Zorn was given (and he had little if any input in personnel) .... a team that was constantly condemned as lacking talent (the oft used excuse for the pathetic play of poor Jason, who never had a chance with that crappy o-line and worthless receivers) ... Jim Zorn was a dog, but Shanahan is solid as a rock? Hardly. That makes about as much sense and some of the math skills, and other illogical deductions demonstrated on this thread.

In conclusion ... and the topic of this thread .... this is not Denver's offense .... not Houston's offense, nor even Kyle Shanahan's offense of 2010 and 2011 .... it is the RG3 offense that only RG3 has the ability to make work, and the only reason the Redskins aren't 0-7 right now, and Shanahan's record even more "awful" than it already is.

We've witnessed a substantial decline in defense from the one Shanahan inherited and insisted on revamping (when it was the offense that actually needed the revamping)..... and a new offense that was almost as allergic to touchdowns as the old offense.

This year's offensive success is not the culmination of Kyle getting all his ducks in a row ... it is a product of "Divine Intervention" otherwise referred to by some as the "Black Jesus".

How many coaches with HOF QB's don't have more then 2 NFL titles? I mean two? What the heck is that? Two?

And if you throw out his best years, the rest of his career wasn't as good. I think that's a record for a coach, and not the kind of record they want...

And finally, we are running around thinking the team was better then it was under Zorn, I mean dude, take off the Rose colored glasses. They are Redskin_Fanatic bad, Ray is right. Shannahan couldn't coach high school football.

The one thing Ray said I wondered about was that 1998 was a long time ago. It was? Thanks for telling me I'm old, Ray. What are you, 12?

Since you're the resident expert in this area .... what do you reckon the percentages are that I'm wrong and he's right ? 76% ? Maybe? Or would it be 100% ?

How many coaches with HOF QB's don't have more then 2 NFL titles? I mean two? What the heck is that? Two?

And if you throw out his best years, the rest of his career wasn't as good. I think that's a record for a coach, and not the kind of record they want...

And finally, we are running around thinking the team was better then it was under Zorn, I mean dude, take off the Rose colored glasses. They are Redskin_Fanatic bad, Ray is right. Shannahan couldn't coach high school football.

The one thing Ray said I wondered about was that 1998 was a long time ago. It was? Thanks for telling me I'm old, Ray. What are you, 12?

I don't know what happened over the years ... or maybe it was always just a myth that Redskin fans were some of the more knowledgeable fans in football ... it certainly is not the case here.

Super Bowl appearances and victories or lack thereof, neither make a coach good or bad or mediocre. It's the full body of work that tells the story .... and coaches, no matter their past records, generally have a 3 to 5 year window in which their viability relies on for remaining head coaches of any team. And this really applies to Shanahan as much as anyone else .... and though you might believe it wrong to do so ..... his last three years in Denver that got him fired, must be taken into account when analyzing his performance here. That's not unfair at all ... it's actually quite appropriate.

But if there is any logical association to be made regarding who is more likely to facilitate winning championships, the greater weight is on the side of a great QB taking an marginal coach all the way, versus a great coach making it happen with a marginal QB.

This can be easily determined as true most of the time, by a simple review of history. But nothing is easy, particularly logical conclusions, for people who insist on allowing their minds to run counter clockwise, like you have done. By insisting that Shanahan was the common denominator in Denver's two Super Bowl Championships .... you are either ignoring the fact that the team appeared in three others before he took over, and that the only common denominator was the same QB ... or you simply lack the intellectual capacity to grasp the significance of that evidence.

My experience of you so far, leaves the door wide open to either possibility, so I have no strong feeling of which is the likely situation.

RayNAustin wrote:By insisting that Shanahan was the common denominator in Denver's two Super Bowl Championships .... you are either ignoring the fact that the team appeared in three others before he took over, and that the only common denominator was the same QB ... or you simply lack the intellectual capacity to grasp the significance of that evidence.

My experience of you so far, leaves the door wide open to either possibility, so I have no strong feeling of which is the likely situation.

That's so funny. Hilariously funny. You repeatedly state that which was not which I was stated and then attack your fantasy of what I said rather then what I actually said. Some call it a strawman, I just say it's trippin.

I know it goes in vain, you will ignore my point once again, but I said football is a team game and if you don't have quality coaches as well as quality players you don't win. I did not and never said it was "Shannahan's" Super Bowl and not Elway, I said it was both, and a bunch of other people.

Now you can go back to ignoring my actual argument and arguing the fantasies in your head and telling me how stupid I am for believing what I didn't say and don't think.

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

Deadskins wrote:I'd get Chucky, if Shanahan were fired, but I also wouldn't Fire Shanny just yet.

+1 - although I'd (for sure) have worded it a little better ...

I think that the Bruce & Mike show will continue for a little longer EVEN considering what is evident to all of us

ACTUALLY - how Bruce and Mike deal with all that is happening to our team (offensively, defensively and with Special Teams) will most likely play the biggest part in helping our stupid owner decide what to do next

I also agree with JSPB in that I would not mind seeing Gruden on our sidelines but I do not think that is happening soon unless we see a meltdown here in the rest of this season

These guys get another year IMO

until Dan Snyder lets NFL people make ALL the decisions on who coaches & plays, we will be a mediocre franchise each season starts with high hopes & expectations - & ends with us knowing we should have done better with who we have

RayNAustin wrote:By insisting that Shanahan was the common denominator in Denver's two Super Bowl Championships .... you are either ignoring the fact that the team appeared in three others before he took over, and that the only common denominator was the same QB ... or you simply lack the intellectual capacity to grasp the significance of that evidence.

My experience of you so far, leaves the door wide open to either possibility, so I have no strong feeling of which is the likely situation.

That's so funny. Hilariously funny. You repeatedly state that which was not which I was stated and then attack your fantasy of what I said rather then what I actually said. Some call it a strawman, I just say it's trippin.

I know it goes in vain, you will ignore my point once again, but I said football is a team game and if you don't have quality coaches as well as quality players you don't win. I did not and never said it was "Shannahan's" Super Bowl and not Elway, I said it was both, and a bunch of other people.

Now you can go back to ignoring my actual argument and arguing the fantasies in your head and telling me how stupid I am for believing what I didn't say and don't think.

It's pretty easy to do given how frequently you have no real point, and just engage in the same type hyperbolical claptrap as you've just done again.

Nevertheless, to your claims which are as equally false as they are ridiculous ... you specifically said:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Ouch, sorry Ray, but you're having a bad hair day. Elway carried Shannahan, too funny. I do believe you're a Redskin fan, but it's odd how you need to have a Redskin you hate the living daylights out of at any given moment. Apparently JC did have broad shoulders, your hatred for him had to be carried by ... two ... guys named "Shannahan"

Aside from the absence of any meaningful content, your direct and unmistakable statement regarding how funny it is that anyone might think Elway was the more instrumental character in the Denver Super Bowl successes, as opposed to Shanahan's coaching, it's quite reasonable for one to assume that you believe the opposite, without further qualification of the statement. This perception is bolstered by the fact that you were quick to point out previously, how Elway failed to win three previous Super Bowls before Shanahan took over, insinuating the same sentiment. Of course, you totally fail to see how Elway's previous 3 trips to the Super Bowl without Shanahan's assistance might actually argue against you more than for you. Obviously, you're blinded by your own brilliance.

You go on to insinuate the preposterous notion that I might think that football is not a "team effort", as if I believed that John Elway alone was the only reason Denver made it to 5 Super Bowls, winning 2.

Then, if that wasn't enough, you again go into your diatribe about "hate" as if I haven't already corrected you countless times in the past about how silly and absurd that is. I think Matt Cassel is a total failure of a QB, and I have no interest whatsoever in what he does or doesn't do in KC, nor do I hate him. Although I am indeed interested in what Redskin QBs do for the Redskins, the same was always true of Jason Campbell, who I never "hated" but simply felt was a failure of a QB, particularly since he cost the team a 1st and 2nd round pick, as well as set the team back 5 years attempting to fix the unfixable .... while people like you were staunchly in Jason's corner, making one excuse after another the whole time, telling me that I didn't know what I was talking about.

Oh yes you did, and that's a fact, and it was the consensus opinion with only a couple of others besides myself who took no part in that kool-aide guzzling.

Of course, true to your form, the moment the inevitable time arrived, and the writing was indelibly on the wall, you change the entire narrative and claim you did no such thing ... that you never claimed Jason was a good QB, and that there just were no alternatives available at the time .... ignoring the fact that a very average (at best) backup came in for Jason and played circles around him, taking us to the playoffs and destroying the contention that no viable alternative existed.

At the end of the day, you're loath to ever admit you were wrong on any matter, and proceed to engage in hyperbole, distortions, revisionist history making, and straw man arguments, and insults to tell others how wrong they are, when it is actually you who is dead to rights wrong.

It's sad that you are so insecure that to concede a point would be like emotional suicide to you.

This is why you engage in your witty little quips about "bad hair days" when the only bad hair is the hair growing on your arguments, and the hair on the evidence presented that claimed 2 + 2 = 76 that you cheered instead of recognized as a very evident, and elementary miscalculation.